This is a test to see which image processing looks better linked from my www.smugmug.com. For some reason, earlier in my processing of smugmug images, the images looked darker and more contrasty on smugmug and when linked to Internet sites than when I opened the image in Photoshop CS6. However, I think that I have solved that problem...
The second image looks better on my smugmug site than the first image. The second image has a bit more contrast and saturation; although I did not use the saturation controls in processing either image. I just wonder what the results will be linked to CiC...
Image #1
Image #2
Helpful Posts: 0
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Test
-
11th September 2013, 05:19 PM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Southern California, USA
- Posts
- 17,394
- Real Name
- Richard
Test
-
11th September 2013, 05:58 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- North West of England
- Posts
- 7,178
- Real Name
- John
Re: Test
To my eye and I guess I should add, on my monitor, the results are the same as you describe. There seems to be more colour depth in the second image - almost to the point of it looking slightly over saturated (the reds mainly). As a result, the colour noise it also more apparent but that's easily dealt with.
-
11th September 2013, 06:06 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- WNY
- Posts
- 36,717
- Real Name
- John
Re: Test
Second one has more contrast.
-
11th September 2013, 06:39 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Southern California, USA
- Posts
- 17,394
- Real Name
- Richard
-
11th September 2013, 06:56 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- North West of England
- Posts
- 7,178
- Real Name
- John
Re: Test
Still there in the sky Richard. I took the liberty of downloading your image and trying some noise software. Nik Sharpener made hardly any difference, Imagenomic was better but Topaz DeNoise killed it. PS also did a good job but you need to add a bit of sharpening (or be selective in your noise reduction). Don't take it from that, that Topaz is better than the rest. I find that it depends on the image/type of noise.
-
11th September 2013, 07:07 PM #6
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Suva, Fiji
- Posts
- 7,075
- Real Name
- Grahame
Re: Test
Richard,
I put it through 'Neat Image' de-noise programme and it removed all noise easily.
-
11th September 2013, 09:50 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Southern California, USA
- Posts
- 17,394
- Real Name
- Richard
Re: Test
I went back to the DNG image and redid the processing from the start. I had been playing with this image too much and really gopped it up. The image was deteriorating in small increments which added up to a big mess. I didn't notice since the image had been degrading in small portions. I think that the redux processing has produced better results...
I opened the DNG image in Camera RAW with no sharpening or noise prevention selected. The only adjustment I did in Camera Raw was to level the apparent horizon using the lens correction. I saved the image as a PSD document.
I then used the NIK Dfine filter in the default value to remove noise.
Then I presharpening using the NIK Raw Presharpener in the default value.
I selected the Tower in Viveza using control points and increased the contrast, structure and saturation a bit.
I selected the sky using the Viveza control points and increased the blue and saturation a tiny bit.
I sharpened the image using NIK Output Sharpener at default for display.
I saved the image in JPEG with no cropping; selecting maximum quality.
Finally I uploaded the image to smugmug and then linked it to CiC...Last edited by rpcrowe; 11th September 2013 at 10:32 PM.
-
11th September 2013, 10:31 PM #8
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- North West of England
- Posts
- 7,178
- Real Name
- John
Re: Test
Much better. No sign of noise or over saturation now. A nice comp as well. One of those times when straight up the middle works well. A very nice image.
Reply With Quote
